.... I say it is clear because many here associate R1b with lactose persistence which spread to the steepe and is found at appreciable frequencies in IE speaking parts of Asia. And then Jean M mentioned that rare mtdna T clade being found in both Andronovo and Tripoyle. I also find it hard to believe the IE speakers expanding east were fully R1a-Z93+. They had a minority of other clades which died out. Central Asia has been subject to numerous Turkic invasions which have changed the picture and that has also led to migrations westward.

Okay, I see what you are saying. I wouldn't necessarily say it is clear that R1a and R1b interacted in the Tripolye Yamna contact/integration. This is a good chance they did. I wish we had some aDNA from those sites.

Maybe R1a and R1b didn't but R1a and R1b tribes did. Lactose persistence had to have originated in one of those tribes and it doesn't make sense for R1a populations far away from Europe to have the same alleles for lactose persistence. of course the possibility of it being transmitted through mtdna is always there.

In terms of Anantole's paper I would say 'dont throw out the baby with the bath water'. Its a very interesting paper about the deepest origins of R1b and its early fanning out. Its a pity he tends to undermine his cred a little when he dabbles outside the DNA and mathematical element but a lot of what he says is very interesting. I would say his general model of the multi-directional fanning out of R1b from south Russia could be on the money. I would interpret it culturally somewhat differently though. I would suspect that his southwards movement of L23 could be associated with the Anatolian languages and the Assyrian element could well be due to the Hittite empire who I suspect had an L23 aristocracy. I would certainly not associate L23 with the founding of Sumer but it clearly infiltrated the area. Personally I would think L23 Biforked south and west judging by the split between Hittite and the other Indo-Europeans. Some L23 must have stayed behind in the 'core' where full PIE developed and headed west more directly into Europe. All in all if you ignore some of his dabblings in interpretation I still find his basic model very interesting albeit some of the details of its spread into central and western Europe need some work IMO.

One comment- I think Jean L said good luck to anyone deriving U106 from Iberia. I think the reality is U106 did not exist at the time of the first century or so of the spread of L11. It was an L11* lineage that did the travelling IMO and the U106 SNP happened in a locality (the Baltic) after the initial migration phase and apparently remained fairly bottled up for a very long time after. Bottom line is U106 and P312 both share a very recent L11 ancestor and the later cultural linguistic distinctions we put on them are things that happened long after they did their initial migration phase (in the case of U106 still in the L11* form). Yes U106 eventually did become associated with the formation of Germanic but that was a matter of geography and probably happened about 600BC, 2000 years after the L11* ancestors of U106 had migrated to Poland. Finally I would still strongly think that the Rhone and adjacent were the landfall of L51/L11 group in Europe via some route either through central Europe of around Italy.

Whereas, to partisans of some regional or cultural sorts (Italian, Basque, Assyrian and Iranian spring to mind -- but there are several others, who just aren't making so much noise in this specific discussion), the best way to make the data fit their theories is to concentrate on time frames earlier than any good evidence we might have that contradicts them.

How am I partisan? I present the data, ask questions from folks, and do not even argue in favor of a N Mesopotamian origin of L23.

Edit: Not only that, I present evidence that may support the arguments of others (e.g. Caucasian origin of L23, Balkan or Indo-European origin of L23, Central Asian origin of L23, etc.).

Excluding Turkic and other relatively recent Asian population movements, the four most recent and significant strata (not exclusive of reintroduction of a component and/or uniparental line), in my opinion, in the Near East, beginning with the most recent (all peoples of the region have not been impacted by each, or at least not to the same degree):

2nd millennium/1st millennium BCEAramaean expansions. I am unsure about this. At one time, I thought that some haplogroup Y-DNA T lines could be linked to them. It is possible they may have increased "Southwest Asian" in some groups in the area. To what extent, I do not know.

~ 2nd millennium BCEThe expansion of an eastern(?) people(s) of unknown origin. Elevated "Gedrosia," and in some populations elevated R-M269. This does not mean other uniparental lines were not also involved.

These are simply a few thoughts. Not to be taken seriously.

If the above outline is in the ballpark, at least some populations of northern Mesopotamia, a few millennia ago (4 kya+?), would have carried a predominance (60%+?) of "Caucasus," with the rest being split (not necessarily equally) between "Southwest Asian" and "Atlantic_Med." With perhaps some "NW African" and/or "East African."

Whereas, to partisans of some regional or cultural sorts (Italian, Basque, Assyrian and Iranian spring to mind -- but there are several others, who just aren't making so much noise in this specific discussion), the best way to make the data fit their theories is to concentrate on time frames earlier than any good evidence we might have that contradicts them.

How am I partisan? I present the data, ask questions from folks, and do not even argue in favor of a N Mesopotamian origin of L23.

Edit: Not only that, I present evidence that may support the arguments of others (e.g. Caucasian origin of L23, Balkan or Indo-European origin of L23, Central Asian origin of L23, etc.).

I don't get how you are being a partisan. Individuals who think Iranian R1b is the result of a Balkan migration and later Armenian/Assyrian admixture in Iranian despite there being no proof of either are the partisan. Despite the fact that R1b likely originated in the area and its presence in West Asia has very little to do with Europe.

Here is another. This one, suggestive of a possible Indo-European element:

Quote

Posted 2012-05-22, 15:51

An older paper:

Quote

The few LBA burials uncovered thus far at Sabi Abyad indicate an interesting variability in the treatment of the dead. Apart from the mass interment, which is no doubt of an exceptional nature, three types of formal burial behaviour are recognised. A true cemetery may have existed in the close vicinity of the site, but at least some of the dead, both children and adults, were buried within or at the margins of the settlement. What reasons underlie the choice of burial treatment is not yet clear. Simple pit graves and pot inhumations have a long history and are found throughout the second millennium (and before) in Mesopotamia and Syria. Cremation burials, however, hardly appear in earlier times in these regions. Whereas cremations are commonly found in second millennium Anatolia, in Syria cremations, although already present at the end of the second millennium, seem to constitute a mainly first millennium (Iron Age) feature of burial treatment. In view of the cemeteries at e.g. Hama or Carchemish, cremations are commonly associated with Hittite presence or influence (see Moorey 1980:6), but in the east, e.g. at Assur or Babylon, we find these graves in Neo- Assyrian times (Haller 1954:52ff; Reuther 1926:189).

I don't get how you are being a partisan. Individuals who think Iranian R1b is the result of a Balkan migration and later Armenian/Assyrian admixture in Iranian despite there being no proof of either are the partisan. Despite the fact that R1b likely originated in the area and its presence in West Asia has very little to do with Europe.

This is pretty trivial, and inconsequential to dispute. Whether the R1b man was born in West Asia or Europe is irrelevent and impossible to determine. The vast majority of his descendants live in Europe, so the original man probably did not live too deep into Asia. (ie: probably not Central Asia, or India for example - despite a single R1b1* Indian male in our samples) I also think this could be an extremely long time ago which is why so few males live on today. (12000+ years)

The strongest point of origin (R1b1*) in my view is Anatolia which borders Europe. So techincally I suppose it's "not European", but at the same time it is pretty close. I am not sure on the status of the L389 mutation, but it consists of a pretty broad swath of territory- consisting at least 1 Ashkenazi cluster and some Armenians and other West Asians.

Yeah I suppose it comes with the turf in a hobby where a lot of people are seeking/want to refine some sort of ethno-historic identity. I get sick of the transparent obsession some people have about making their own haplogroup or that which is strong in their population as early and indigenous as possible. In other words you are more of a 'true' member of your ethnic or national group because you are earlier or it proves some political point. There is also far too much talk of 'pure' populations of single yDNA lineages. There is also a bit too much admiration for violent conquest. There is also too much childish heavy metal type fantasies for conan the barbarian types (some people never grow up). Then there is the seeking of glory in claims that one's own haplogroup did this or that. There is a lot of obsessing about Indo-European and a desperation to be part of that. There is often a suggestion of superiority or a desire to associate with northern Europeans and nordics in general. Ringing any alarm bells? I Those ideas seem live and well in this hobby.

Yeah I suppose it comes with the turf in a hobby where a lot of people are seeking/want to refine some sort of ethno-historic identity. I get sick of the transparent obsession some people have about making their own haplogroup or that which is strong in their population as early and indigenous as possible. In other words you are more of a 'true' member of your ethnic or national group because you are earlier or it proves some political point. There is also far too much talk of 'pure' populations of single yDNA lineages. There is also a bit too much admiration for violent conquest. There is also too much childish heavy metal type fantasies for conan the barbarian types (some people never grow up). Then there is the seeking of glory in claims that one's own haplogroup did this or that. There is a lot of obsessing about Indo-European and a desperation to be part of that. There is often a suggestion of superiority or a desire to associate with northern Europeans and nordics in general. Ringing any alarm bells? I Those ideas seem live and well in this hobby.

All that is true and, as you said, pretty obvious. I'm not sure it can be helped, however. We all want our ancestors, especially those in our own direct y-dna line, to be heroic and larger than life.

I am susceptible to that urge myself, but I like to think I have a kind of nose for the truth, even when it is not what I would have preferred, that gives me a certain immunity from the worst fantasy-hobbyist excesses.

The complexity of this past time is daunting. It requires expertise in genetics, history, archaeology, anthropology, mathematics, linguistics, geography, and more. Who is the master of all those fields? Not I!

That complexity makes all of these competing hypotheses possible, and it makes even some of those that are probably patently ridiculous sound - for a time - credible.

There have been quite a few times, especially recently, that I have contemplated abandoning an interest in and the pursuit of "deep ancestry" and restricting myself to personal genealogy. Personal family genealogy is the interest that got me into dna testing in the first place, although when I ordered my first 37-marker y-dna test I did harbor a silly, childish desire to be a "Viking". :-)

In terms of Anantole's paper I would say 'dont throw out the baby with the bath water'. Its a very interesting paper about the deepest origins of R1b and its early fanning out. Its a pity he tends to undermine his cred a little when he dabbles outside the DNA and mathematical element but a lot of what he says is very interesting. I would say his general model of the multi-directional fanning out of R1b from south Russia could be on the money. I would interpret it culturally somewhat differently though. I would suspect that his southwards movement of L23 could be associated with the Anatolian languages and the Assyrian element could well be due to the Hittite empire who I suspect had an L23 aristocracy. I would certainly not associate L23 with the founding of Sumer but it clearly infiltrated the area. Personally I would think L23 Biforked south and west judging by the split between Hittite and the other Indo-Europeans. Some L23 must have stayed behind in the 'core' where full PIE developed and headed west more directly into Europe. All in all if you ignore some of his dabblings in interpretation I still find his basic model very interesting albeit some of the details of its spread into central and western Europe need some work IMO.

One comment- I think Jean L said good luck to anyone deriving U106 from Iberia. I think the reality is U106 did not exist at the time of the first century or so of the spread of L11. It was an L11* lineage that did the travelling IMO and the U106 SNP happened in a locality (the Baltic) after the initial migration phase and apparently remained fairly bottled up for a very long time after. Bottom line is U106 and P312 both share a very recent L11 ancestor and the later cultural linguistic distinctions we put on them are things that happened long after they did their initial migration phase (in the case of U106 still in the L11* form). Yes U106 eventually did become associated with the formation of Germanic but that was a matter of geography and probably happened about 600BC, 2000 years after the L11* ancestors of U106 had migrated to Poland. Finally I would still strongly think that the Rhone and adjacent were the landfall of L51/L11 group in Europe via some route either through central Europe of around Italy.

There are a huge amount of scenarios for explaining R1b almost anywhere. The Hittite empire I think may have been founded by an L23 group (with a smaller M269* element) from somewhere else. The Hittite empire was massive and covered a large area including much of Anatolia, the northern part of Syria where most L23 is), part of Lebanon, the north of Iraq, The NE of Iran etc. Of course those were sophisticated societies and I think there would have been movement of ordinary people between those areas and the neighbouring countries too. The Hittite empire is just one of a large group of movements in that general area. I think there is enough evidence to suggest R1b was also present in some Iranian and clearly was among the Armenians. Whether R1b was due to Hittites or was simply in the earlier Iranian mix prior to it decreasing by founder effects and fission, I dont know. I really hope some money some day is thrown at a major study of R1b from L23 upstream in eastern Europe, Anatolia and SW and central Asia.

Yeah I suppose it comes with the turf in a hobby where a lot of people are seeking/want to refine some sort of ethno-historic identity. I get sick of the transparent obsession some people have about making their own haplogroup or that which is strong in their population as early and indigenous as possible. In other words you are more of a 'true' member of your ethnic or national group because you are earlier or it proves some political point. There is also far too much talk of 'pure' populations of single yDNA lineages. There is also a bit too much admiration for violent conquest. There is also too much childish heavy metal type fantasies for conan the barbarian types (some people never grow up). Then there is the seeking of glory in claims that one's own haplogroup did this or that. There is a lot of obsessing about Indo-European and a desperation to be part of that. There is often a suggestion of superiority or a desire to associate with northern Europeans and nordics in general. Ringing any alarm bells? I Those ideas seem live and well in this hobby.

All that is true and, as you said, pretty obvious. I'm not sure it can be helped, however. We all want our ancestors, especially those in our own direct y-dna line, to be heroic and larger than life.

I am susceptible to that urge myself, but I like to think I have a kind of nose for the truth, even when it is not what I would have preferred, that gives me a certain immunity from the worst fantasy-hobbyist excesses.

The complexity of this past time is daunting. It requires expertise in genetics, history, archaeology, anthropology, mathematics, linguistics, geography, and more. Who is the master of all those fields? Not I!

That complexity makes all of these competing hypotheses possible, and it makes even some of those that are probably patently ridiculous sound - for a time - credible.

There have been quite a few times, especially recently, that I have contemplated abandoning an interest in and the pursuit of "deep ancestry" and restricting myself to personal genealogy. Personal family genealogy is the interest that got me into dna testing in the first place, although when I ordered my first 37-marker y-dna test I did harbor a silly, childish desire to be a "Viking". :-)

:0) my post was a bit overly serious and all of us deep down would like a particularly interesting deep ancestry. its just the mix of traits I posted are a bit alarming. I have to be honest though I quiet liked the idea of being a western refugia hunter gather. I always thought I would much prefer their lifestyle (called 'the first affluent society') to farming. Still, everyones ancestors were hunters somewhere at some time. I am now curious as to where R1b's Ice Age eastern refuge was. Jean M has made some suggestions. I would like to find out a bit more but with the origin point of R1b and R1 a little vague (anywhere from Siberia to Anatolia) it would be complex. I think we need some sort of study specifically targetted on early R1b. I suppose at the LGM it was still really R1, maybe with early R1a and R1b. Now I have accepted the variance dating I am no longer convinced R1b was in the farming zone so I would tend to think of its likely refuge as being further north than Anatolia or Mesopotamia. If it had been that far south it would have been in the epicentre of early farming. R1b above M269 (and below it too for some time) does not have the branching expanding structure you would expect for a haoplogroup who experienced the farming demographic explosion. I think what has been lost sight of due to the contrasting European distributions of much later clades is the similarity of R1a and R1b prior to say 4000BC. They both seem to have been really in the backwoods and demographically not doing well. The simplest explanation is they were both late hunter-gatherers in or adjacent to the steppes.

:0) my post was a bit overly serious and all of us deep down would like a particularly interesting deep ancestry. its just the mix of traits I posted are a bit alarming. I have to be honest though I quiet liked the idea of being a western refugia hunter gather. I always thought I would much prefer their lifestyle (called 'the first affluent society') to farming. Still, everyones ancestors were hunters somewhere at some time. I am now curious as to where R1b's Ice Age refuge was.

That's true. The "Cro-Magnon R1b" thing that was much advertised when I ordered my first dna test would please me just fine, too. I just never thought it made much sense and still don't.

As you know because I have mentioned it before, I grew up thinking I was an Anglo-Saxon or a Viking (by descent, I mean - and I am pretty sure I have those folks among my ancestors, too) and that the Britons were pathetic losers who got herded into Wales, Cornwall, southern Scotland, and Brittany. Then I found out my y-dna ancestors probably were Britons! How the world turns! Now I wouldn't trade that for anything.

So, whatever we ultimately discover, I'll find something to like about it.

:0) my post was a bit overly serious and all of us deep down would like a particularly interesting deep ancestry. its just the mix of traits I posted are a bit alarming. I have to be honest though I quiet liked the idea of being a western refugia hunter gather. I always thought I would much prefer their lifestyle (called 'the first affluent society') to farming. Still, everyones ancestors were hunters somewhere at some time. I am now curious as to where R1b's Ice Age refuge was.

That's true. The "Cro-Magnon R1b" thing that was much advertised when I ordered my first dna test would please me just fine, too. I just never thought it made much sense and still don't.

As you know because I have mentioned it before, I grew up thinking I was an Anglo-Saxon or a Viking (by descent, I mean - and I am pretty sure I have those folks among my ancestors, too) and that the Britons were pathetic losers who got herded into Wales, Cornwall, southern Scotland, and Brittany. Then I found out my y-dna ancestors probably were Britons! How the world turns! Now I wouldn't trade that for anything.

So, whatever we ultimately discover, I'll find something to like about it.

I doubt the Anglo-Saxons would have conquered the Britons if they hadnt been disarmed by the Romans for 400 years and expecting professional protection. If the Anglo-Saxons had tried to cross to Britain in pre-Roman times I think they would have quickly been sent packing and would probably have just been pirates (without the hook hand, wooden leg, eye patch and parrot)

I don't get how you are being a partisan. Individuals who think Iranian R1b is the result of a Balkan migration and later Armenian/Assyrian admixture in Iranian despite there being no proof of either are the partisan. Despite the fact that R1b likely originated in the area and its presence in West Asia has very little to do with Europe.

From Herrera (2011). Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists:

"...Armenian as an old Indo-European language with similarities to the ancestral Proto-Indo-European languages has led to the supposition that agriculturalists migrating from Armenia into Europe were responsible for the establishment of Indo-European languages in the continent.13,14 However, despite the close linguistic relationship between Armenians and the Indo-European speaking populations ofEurope,12 we see little genetic support for this claim. The derived M412 allele, which is found in nearly all haplogroup R1b1b1*-L23 chromosomes in Europe,27 is absent in the sampled Armenians, which also exhibit a scarcity of haplotype sharing with Europeans, suggesting a limited role for Armenians in the introduction of R1b into Europe."

"Several authors have proposed that the Indo-European language presently spoken by Armenians arose during the Bronze Age, when Indo-European speaking tribes from the Balkans and Greece invaded Anatolia and Transcaucasia, leading to the subsequent spread of their culture and language.16,17 In this study, we have detected a number of lineages that are prominent in the Balkans (I2*, I2b*, J2b1 and J2b2) at low levels throughout Ararat Valley, Gardman and Lake Van, the latter of which also contains haplogroups commonly associated with Bronze Age Greece (ie, J2a8-M319 (4.9%), and E1b1b1-M78 and its sublineages (3.9%)). While this may suggest genetic input from early Greek or Phrygian tribes, it is also possible that these low levels of Balkan lineages arrived in Armenia at a later time, such as during one of the many incursions into the area during the reign of the Macedonian, Roman and Byzantine empires. It should be noted that these results only reﬂect the paternal history of Armenia and studies on a maternal or gender-neutral system may reveal distinct conclusions."

Anyway, R1 and early R1b and R1a clearly were hunter gatherers somewhere. Its just looking like it was almost certainly in the east not the west. I have always been amazed that the eastern refuge seems to have been in Ukraine, a far colder refuge than the western one. I think that had a lot more to do with the game migration patterns than better weather. I have no idea if R1 was there.

Yeah I suppose it comes with the turf in a hobby where a lot of people are seeking/want to refine some sort of ethno-historic identity.

My grandfather called himself a "Suraya," his grandfather before him, and so on. We had lived in northern Mesopotamia for at least as long as there was a Church of the East. We speak an Aramaic dialect tied to that specific area (the Tigris and points immediately east), with a history in Mesopotamia dating back to the BCE. We are genetically (and in other ways) similar to populations with ancient histories in the area, etc. If trying to further connect to my past is a crime, well, then, I am guilty. Since I am not hurting anyone, and always try and remain civil in my discussions with others, I really do not see what the problem is. At least in my case. Plus, again, I am not even saying R-L23 originated in northern Mesopotamia. If we could choose where it originated, I would vote for Europe, because I know how much it means to so many people of European ancestry.

If we could choose where it originated, I would vote for Europe, because I know how much it means to so many people of European ancestry.

Humanist, you are very kind, you who brings a Latin nickname, but I don't want your charity. I am scientifically convinced that at least from R1b1* this haplogroup is European (I am convinced that it is above all Italian), but we are the descendants of Greek thinking, and only proofs (in this case aDNA) decide who is right and who is wrong. Certainly to treat with you is better than with someone else.

Humanist, you are very kind, you who brings a Latin nickname, but I don't want your charity. I am scientifically convinced that at least from R1b1* this haplogroup is European (I am convinced that it is above all Italian), but we are the descendants of Greek thinking, and only proofs (in this case aDNA) decide who is right and who is wrong. Certainly to treat with you is better than with someone else.

That is fine. I believe that Italy likely played a very important part in the spread of R-M269 in the European continent.

Anyway, R1 and early R1b and R1a clearly were hunter gatherers somewhere. Its just looking like it was almost certainly in the east not the west. I have always been amazed that the eastern refuge seems to have been in Ukraine, a far colder refuge than the western one. I think that had a lot more to do with the game migration patterns than better weather. I have no idea if R1 was there.

One other thing to keep in perspective YDNA A->T were ALL hunter gatherers at some point in time. :) Many would even argue that agriculture sprung up from people who lived in the right place at the right time. It's not exactly an innovation, some would argue it was accidental.

I don't get how you are being a partisan. Individuals who think Iranian R1b is the result of a Balkan migration and later Armenian/Assyrian admixture in Iranian despite there being no proof of either are the partisan. Despite the fact that R1b likely originated in the area and its presence in West Asia has very little to do with Europe.

This is pretty trivial, and inconsequential to dispute. Whether the R1b man was born in West Asia or Europe is irrelevent and impossible to determine. The vast majority of his descendants live in Europe, so the original man probably did not live too deep into Asia. (ie: probably not Central Asia, or India for example - despite a single R1b1* Indian male in our samples) I also think this could be an extremely long time ago which is why so few males live on today. (12000+ years)

The strongest point of origin (R1b1*) in my view is Anatolia which borders Europe. So techincally I suppose it's "not European", but at the same time it is pretty close. I am not sure on the status of the L389 mutation, but it consists of a pretty broad swath of territory- consisting at least 1 Ashkenazi cluster and some Armenians and other West Asians.

So frequency is what matters? I never once suggested an Indian or Central asian origin.

And Anatolia is a broad term. R1b diversity seems to suggest it origin n the area encompassing Eastern Anatolia, Northern Iraq, Armenia and NW Iran. Hardly what I would call European.

Yeah I suppose it comes with the turf in a hobby where a lot of people are seeking/want to refine some sort of ethno-historic identity. I get sick of the transparent obsession some people have about making their own haplogroup or that which is strong in their population as early and indigenous as possible. In other words you are more of a 'true' member of your ethnic or national group because you are earlier or it proves some political point. There is also far too much talk of 'pure' populations of single yDNA lineages. There is also a bit too much admiration for violent conquest. There is also too much childish heavy metal type fantasies for conan the barbarian types (some people never grow up). Then there is the seeking of glory in claims that one's own haplogroup did this or that. There is a lot of obsessing about Indo-European and a desperation to be part of that. There is often a suggestion of superiority or a desire to associate with northern Europeans and nordics in general. Ringing any alarm bells? I Those ideas seem live and well in this hobby.

All that is true and, as you said, pretty obvious. I'm not sure it can be helped, however. We all want our ancestors, especially those in our own direct y-dna line, to be heroic and larger than life.

I am susceptible to that urge myself, but I like to think I have a kind of nose for the truth, even when it is not what I would have preferred, that gives me a certain immunity from the worst fantasy-hobbyist excesses.

The complexity of this past time is daunting. It requires expertise in genetics, history, archaeology, anthropology, mathematics, linguistics, geography, and more. Who is the master of all those fields? Not I!

That complexity makes all of these competing hypotheses possible, and it makes even some of those that are probably patently ridiculous sound - for a time - credible.

There have been quite a few times, especially recently, that I have contemplated abandoning an interest in and the pursuit of "deep ancestry" and restricting myself to personal genealogy. Personal family genealogy is the interest that got me into dna testing in the first place, although when I ordered my first 37-marker y-dna test I did harbor a silly, childish desire to be a "Viking". :-)

:0) my post was a bit overly serious and all of us deep down would like a particularly interesting deep ancestry. its just the mix of traits I posted are a bit alarming. I have to be honest though I quiet liked the idea of being a western refugia hunter gather. I always thought I would much prefer their lifestyle (called 'the first affluent society') to farming. Still, everyones ancestors were hunters somewhere at some time. I am now curious as to where R1b's Ice Age eastern refuge was. Jean M has made some suggestions. I would like to find out a bit more but with the origin point of R1b and R1 a little vague (anywhere from Siberia to Anatolia) it would be complex. I think we need some sort of study specifically targetted on early R1b. I suppose at the LGM it was still really R1, maybe with early R1a and R1b. Now I have accepted the variance dating I am no longer convinced R1b was in the farming zone so I would tend to think of its likely refuge as being further north than Anatolia or Mesopotamia. If it had been that far south it would have been in the epicentre of early farming. R1b above M269 (and below it too for some time) does not have the branching expanding structure you would expect for a haoplogroup who experienced the farming demographic explosion. I think what has been lost sight of due to the contrasting European distributions of much later clades is the similarity of R1a and R1b prior to say 4000BC. They both seem to have been really in the backwoods and demographically not doing well. The simplest explanation is they were both late hunter-gatherers in or adjacent to the steppes.

That is a stretch and based on speculation and wishful thinking. I would like to see evidence of the Hittie empire being responsible for all this R1b.

I don't get how you are being a partisan. Individuals who think Iranian R1b is the result of a Balkan migration and later Armenian/Assyrian admixture in Iranian despite there being no proof of either are the partisan. Despite the fact that R1b likely originated in the area and its presence in West Asia has very little to do with Europe.

From Herrera (2011). Neolithic patrilineal signals indicate that the Armenian plateau was repopulated by agriculturalists:

"...Armenian as an old Indo-European language with similarities to the ancestral Proto-Indo-European languages has led to the supposition that agriculturalists migrating from Armenia into Europe were responsible for the establishment of Indo-European languages in the continent.13,14 However, despite the close linguistic relationship between Armenians and the Indo-European speaking populations ofEurope,12 we see little genetic support for this claim. The derived M412 allele, which is found in nearly all haplogroup R1b1b1*-L23 chromosomes in Europe,27 is absent in the sampled Armenians, which also exhibit a scarcity of haplotype sharing with Europeans, suggesting a limited role for Armenians in the introduction of R1b into Europe."

"Several authors have proposed that the Indo-European language presently spoken by Armenians arose during the Bronze Age, when Indo-European speaking tribes from the Balkans and Greece invaded Anatolia and Transcaucasia, leading to the subsequent spread of their culture and language.16,17 In this study, we have detected a number of lineages that are prominent in the Balkans (I2*, I2b*, J2b1 and J2b2) at low levels throughout Ararat Valley, Gardman and Lake Van, the latter of which also contains haplogroups commonly associated with Bronze Age Greece (ie, J2a8-M319 (4.9%), and E1b1b1-M78 and its sublineages (3.9%)). While this may suggest genetic input from early Greek or Phrygian tribes, it is also possible that these low levels of Balkan lineages arrived in Armenia at a later time, such as during one of the many incursions into the area during the reign of the Macedonian, Roman and Byzantine empires. It should be noted that these results only reﬂect the paternal history of Armenia and studies on a maternal or gender-neutral system may reveal distinct conclusions."

No one is disputing Armenian's origins in the Balkan.

And thanks for posting that. The major differene between Armenians and Assyrians is that Armenians tend to be E-V13 and I2 whereas I is absent in Assyrians and E-V13 is rare. Thanks for posting something that supports the point that the majority of West Asian R1b didn't come from the Balkans. If it did other populations would havve I and E-V13. The Iranian I is not even all I2. It is a recent introduction. Same applies for the Levantine I.

I don't get how you are being a partisan. Individuals who think Iranian R1b is the result of a Balkan migration and later Armenian/Assyrian admixture in Iranian despite there being no proof of either are the partisan. Despite the fact that R1b likely originated in the area and its presence in West Asia has very little to do with Europe.

This is pretty trivial, and inconsequential to dispute. Whether the R1b man was born in West Asia or Europe is irrelevent and impossible to determine. The vast majority of his descendants live in Europe, so the original man probably did not live too deep into Asia. (ie: probably not Central Asia, or India for example - despite a single R1b1* Indian male in our samples) I also think this could be an extremely long time ago which is why so few males live on today. (12000+ years)

The strongest point of origin (R1b1*) in my view is Anatolia which borders Europe. So techincally I suppose it's "not European", but at the same time it is pretty close. I am not sure on the status of the L389 mutation, but it consists of a pretty broad swath of territory- consisting at least 1 Ashkenazi cluster and some Armenians and other West Asians.

So frequency is what matters? I never once suggested an Indian or Central asian origin.

And Anatolia is a broad term. R1b diversity seems to suggest it origin n the area encompassing Eastern Anatolia, Northern Iraq, Armenia and NW Iran. Hardly what I would call European.

Reminds me of the diversity studies that claim R1a1a is from India. Hardly what I would call the steppe.